You cannot serve two Masters.

Via No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money:

 

I have a humble suggestion to help avoid public airing of private business while also quelling further cries of impropriety.
When the Board addresses this resolution, I request that any Board member, officer, or staff member who has a personal, financial, or fiduciary interest in, or fidelity to, Ackerman McQueen (or its subsidiary and affiliate companies) — as an employee, contractor, paid consultant, vendor, client, etc. — be required to recuse himself/herself from discussing or voting on this resolution.
That way, regardless of how the Board ultimately disposes of the resolution, at least the result will be less vulnerable to accusations of ethically dubious entanglements.

Letter to the BOD of the NRA by Tiffany G. Johnson, Esq. 

It makes all the sense of the world. Ack Mack is now officially an antagonist and if you are getting monies from them, it puts you in a position of perceived conflict of interest.

 

4 Replies to “You cannot serve two Masters.”

  1. Avoiding conflicts of interest is so common in business I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t in a contract already. You can’t sit on the board of one company and serve as president of a competitor or be president of one and on the board of a subcontractor. How was this not understood and enforced by an org as big as the NRA.

    All I can think is that Norths ties to Ack Mack were as hidden away as the book keeping.

  2. I’m frankly amazed that the relationship between North and AM was permitted in the first place.

    It does not say good things about North’s character, nor the principals at AM, to have entered into it. It says even worse things about whatever committee was supposed to be performing oversight on such things.

    And if there was no such committee … well, if that’s the case then the New York State investigation is likely warranted, no matter how I feel about the investigators. Actually, if the investigation could be done impartially (yeah, I know), it could actually wind up being a good thing for the NRA in the long run.

  3. Can someone point to a clear discussion of what happened? All I have seen is a WSJ article, which made it clear there was a major fight between North and LaPierre, but it didn’t make it clear (at least not so it jumped out at me as I read the article) who was right and who was wrong.

    1. I think AmmoLand had the full letter published. I’d suggest reading it and drawing your own conclusion. Not to be a jerk, but at this point I see wrong on both sides and don’t want to bias your perception with my take.

      But, basically, it’s messy.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.